It has been a source of ongoing sadness to read of the difficulties Lauren Richardson’s father has had over the course of the past several months. For those of you who are not familiar with her case, Lauren overdosed on heroin on August 28, 2006. She suffered oxygen deprivation and, as a result of the overdose, is now in a coma and unable to speak out for herself. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting a baby. Her parents honored what they knew would have been her wish and did all they could to keep her healthy and comfortable until the child was born. Today, though Lauren may not be aware of it, she is the mother of Ember Grace, who was born in February 2007.

Since the birth of her daughter, Lauren remains unable to speak of her concerns, but she has a loving father who is doing all he can to protect her from suffering the same fate as Terri Schiavo. However, Lauren’s mother, who has been named her legal guardian, is sadly not of the same opinion and is working with attorneys to pressure the courts to permit Lauren’s starvation.

Lauren’s father has kept hope alive, even at times when there appeared to be no hope in human terms. Lauren’s father is a man of hope in Christ and is dedicated to spending every breath he has on defending Lauren, regardless of what it might cost him in physical exhaustion and worldly goods. The most recent update for those concerned about Lauren tells us the following:

We struggle at times as we seek to share with the public the details of what is happening with Lauren because of the disagreement we have with Lauren’s mother. We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing and restoration for Lauren and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her. The issue in Lauren’s case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health.

Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, has written about Lauren in an editorial earlier this year, "False Compassion," and is working closely with Lauren’s father in order to provide expertise that he is uniquely qualified to share during a trying time like this.

There are many links on the Life for Lauren web site that will assist you in tracking this case and learning who is supporting Lauren’s ongoing care and who is opposing it. More importantly, there is something you can do to express your concerns.

ACTION NEEDED NOW

The governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, is being asked by pro-life Americans across this nation to intervene in this case in order to save Lauren from what many fear is an imminent court order dictating that Lauren be starved and dehydrated to death. I am asking you to be one of those who communicates your passionate belief that Lauren’s life is sacred and deserves to be protected from those who would order her death. The governor’s e-mail address is governor.minner@state.de.us.

Further, it would mean a great deal to Lauren’s father, Randy, if you sent him a copy of your e-mail to Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Randy’s e-mail address is Lifeforlauren@aol.com.

During a recent visit to Anchorage, Alaska where Bobby Schindler was invited to speak, he told a reporter from The Catholic Anchor, "Once we accept that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, we lose any type of parameters. Euthanasia is a form of abandonment. It is not compassion."

Truer words were never spoken. As I frequently tell people who argue that we pro-lifers are being heartless and cruel for fighting to defend the rights of a "hopeless case," "God is the author of every human being’s life, and He has never given permission to a single one of us to arbitrarily rob another human being of life for any reason including disability or illness."

As Flannery O’Connor once wrote on the subject of false compassion, "In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And tenderness leads to the gas chamber."

Lauren Richardson is not terminal – she is severely disabled. Lauren Richardson should not be murdered.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

In a 92-page document obtained by LifeSiteNews.com that is due to be released next week, Bishop Patrick O'Donohue writes, "I am convinced another cause of the wide-spread violence lies in the Abortion Act of 1967.".....

Planned Parenthood and NARAL hail Barack Obama as "100 percent" pro-choice. But perhaps they should create a special new category for pols who go above and beyond the call of duty to vote for abortion rights even when they are not in legislative play.

Barack Obama would deserve a place of honor amongst these 110 percent pro-choicers, as he sees abortion rights threatened almost everywhere, including in anti-infanticide bills.

It has now been established that his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act rested on an excess of pro-choice zeal, as evident in the fact that 100 percent pro-choicers such as Hillary Clinton voted for the Senate bill. That's the sort of enthusiasm which should earn Obama the Margaret Sanger Award.

Obama feared that the legislation could cause Roe v. Wade to unravel, though no such threat existed, since the legislation didn't pertain to unborn children.

But no matter: his pro-choice heart was in the right place. Abortion rights can never be safe enough.

~Snip~

Remember that statesman-like moment in one of the Democratic primary debates? Asked about his biggest mistake in the Senate, he grandly abased himself by saying: "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision making process of the families.

"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake..."

The Democrats are the party of socialized medicine -- a system which assumes the right of the state to meddle in the health care decisions of families -- but they would never dream of "interjecting themselves" into such minor health care matters as abortion and euthanasia.

Obama's Schiavo apology is worth recalling in light of this current controversy. Even if one were to put the most generous possible construction on his maneuverings around the Born Alive Infants Protection Act -- he now claims he would have supported it and favors health care for babies that survive abortion -- his support for euthanasia establishes that he accepts the principle of denying care to those outside the womb.

What does it matter if the human is nine months old or 90 years old? If there are "good" reasons to deny care to the disabled or elderly, similarly good reasons can be concocted to deny care to babies that survive abortion.

EXTENDING THE LOGIC of abortion and euthanasia to infanticide is not very hard, and explains why the Democrats drag their feet on bills banning it except when immediate political reasons necessitate their support...............................

Something smells like BO. Yeah, Barry Hussein Muhammad or whatever your current name is, what about it?

Thread by Renfield with thanks to narses for the ping.

................................

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs...........

He thinks we are the ones who are crazy and it is Barry hussein. He will fight to for the death...

Thread by wagglebee.

...............................

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Barack Obama and his campaign have repeated the same excuse as to why he opposed a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have stopped infanticide. Obama is on record opposing a measure to give medical care to prematurely born babies who survive botched abortions.

One columnist says Obama's own words during the debate on the bill contradict his current claims that he opposed it because it could have contradicted Roe v. Wade.

Obama originally opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 with concerns that it would impact the Roe decision and Illinois state law concerning when abortions were legal.

But, by the time the bill came up for debate again in 2002, those concerns had been rectified yet Obama continued to oppose the common sense bill...........

This great woman is an ally of ours in our fight to keep Lauren alive.

Thread by wagglebee.

................................

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- An African-American pro-life leader has a message for Barack Obama that plays off on the informal theme that has become a chant at his rallies: No we can't. For Day Gardner, that means the black community can't continue supporting abortion and how it racially targets black Americans.

Gardner has talked before about how abortion businesses unfairly target minority communities and how black women have abortions at much higher rates than white women or Hispanics.

But Gardner says the last straw for her is the recent controversy surrounding Obama's votes in the Illinois legislature against bills that would have protected babies who survive botched abortions.

"Barack Obama is an extremist who, in supporting what amounts to infanticide, would like to see all of us stand idle--twiddling our thumbs as unplanned children, who are born alive, die this terrible death," she told LifeNews.com Thursday.

"We must realize this is definitely part of Mr. Obama's plan for America," Gardner explains. "But it is definitely not mine. In my America, all voices shout, 'No We Can't!' and 'No We Won't!'"

Gardner is also troubled by Obama's refusal to admit that he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act even after his own legislative committee adopted an amendment he now says would have made it possible for him to vote for the bill..................

The Bush administration proposed new rules today that critics say would make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions, and for men and women to obtain contraceptives.

After more than a month of internal -- and eventually public -- debate, the administration unveiled regulations that, if enacted, would provide stronger protections for doctors and other healthcare providers to refuse to perform medical procedures -- or, possibly, sell contraceptives -- if such steps violate their religious beliefs..................

It does not take much for grantees who receive funds from the Obama-Ayers led Anneberg Chicago effort to sign its praises. When an outside group audits the performance and reveals scores of millions of dollars were all but wasted, I think that should have some bearing on our evaluation of Obama as a leader of change efforts.

No wonder the Obama campaign is engaging in an extraordinary level of secrecy regarding Obama's track record as State Senator (his written records unavailable), lawyer (no list of his clients available) and leader of the failed effort to reform public schooling in Chicago..........

LifeNews.com Note: Ken Connor is a pro-life attorney who was intimately involved in the fight to save Terri Schiavo and is the former president of the Family Research Council. He is now the chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Most people have a ready answer to this question. A "pro-life" supporter will generally point to conception, while a "pro-choice" proponent will often point to birth.

There are a variety of opinions, but the average person does have an opinion. Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't answer this most basic question about human rights.

Senator Obama's response to Reverend Rick Warren's question during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

He went on to state that he is "pro-choice", but that both sides should "find common ground" by seeking to "reduce the number of abortions." Still he refused to answer the question of what constitutes a human being worthy of rights and protections.

You would think a man who studied at Harvard and Columbia and who is running for the office of President of the United States would have taken the time to figure out his position on this controversial question.........

Janet Rivera's entire family had to fight a government that was determined to remove basic medical care from a disabled woman.

Rivera was left to die a painful death by starvation and dehydration a few weeks ago when Fresno County decided to stop giving her food and water. But when she began to improve, public outcry helped Rivera finally get her feeding tube back after 12 days without it.

It's one thing to allow a family member to die of natural causes from an illness. It's another thing to remove basic care like food and water from a disabled person.....

SPRINGFIELD - A Hampden Superior Court judge Friday denied a defense lawyer's request to move the trial of Jason D. Strickland out of this county because of the intense publicity regarding his case.

Strickland, formerly of Westfield, faces a series of assault and battery charges in connection with injuries sustained by his stepdaughter Haleigh Poutre, 14. After Haleigh was brought to Noble Hospital Sept. 11, 2005, in Westfield with a severe head injury, her adoptive mother and stepfather were charged with abuse.

Judge Judd J. Carhart said that in the age of the Internet, publicity spreads to a wider area. He also said that most of the publicity seemed to have been "a long time ago."...

The underlying intent of Malthus: Something noble, or simply a ruse to kill and destroy as many souls as possible? I see an ugly lust for death masked by that noble claim.

Thread by wagglebee.

............................

Nothing makes a Malthusian's heart beat faster than a good famine and so these are feast days for good Malthusian hearts. Parts of the world are now awash in water shortages and in food riots.

Thomas Malthus was the 18th century preacher/mathematician who first postulated that overpopulation would inevitably lead to widespread starvation, galloping disease, war and other grisly large-scale die-offs.

Using Malthusian arguments the eugenicists and the population controllers waged a 20th century campaign to lower fertility rates and were successful beyond their wildest dreams. So successful were they that the UN predicts that every country in the world, with the exception of a tiny few in sub-Sahara Africa, will reach below replacement fertility by 2025.....

Some libs and lefties are pro-choice simply because it is in their instruction manual. But, no, not the Obamunist! He wants 'em dead. Way beyond the requisite acceptance of baby killing as a good thing to do, he shows a rare lust shared only by the greats in the death industry. Thread by wagglebee:

...................................

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- How strongly does Barack Obama believe in unlimited abortions? Strongly enough that the only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama's name wasn't attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.

In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion.

The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review..............

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- While the media and political skeptics say Americans are no longer interested in the issue of abortion, a new survey from the Pew Forum shows otherwise. It finds more than one-third of Americans say abortion is important to their presidential vote, with 39 percent saying so.

The number is down from the figure Pew found in 2004, when 47 percent of Americans said abortion played a role in determining their presidential vote.

The Pew survey also found that "Voters who are strongly opposed to abortion are much more likely than other voters to say that these are very important voting issues."

That confirms other polls showing that pro-life voters have a much higher voting intensity than voters who support abortions. That intensity has been responsible for giving pro-life candidates like John McCain an edge over pro-abortion candidates like Barack Obama.....

WASHINGTON, DC, August 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today, Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region announced that it has launched the "'A' Word Campaign" and its new Web site for teens, http://www.theawordohio.com. The campaign is set to hit the Cincinnati area just in time to coincide with the nation's largest abortion giant's push to open a new killing center just down the street from Western Hills High School, which has a high percentage of minority students.

Planned Parenthood's 'A' Word Campaign supposedly stands for "abstinence, access, affordability and advocacy." In one of its web sites (http://www.takecaredownthere.com), Planned Parenthood implies that abstinence includes deviant sexual practices. According to Planned Parenthood's statement, released Aug. 21, the campaign is meant to foster a perception that Planned Parenthood is about more than just abortion.........

Biden and the Obamunist, a team so tragically funny, I would laugh if it were not so serious...

Thread by wagglebee.

...................................................

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-life Catholic group says it will be easier for Catholic voters to reject Barack Obama as president now that he has strong abortion advocate Joe Biden on board. Although some pundits say Biden is an Irish Catholic who will help Obama in states like Pennsylvania, Brian Burch says he will turn off voters.

Burch, the head of the pro-life organization Fidelis, tells LifeNews.com that Biden's pro-abortion views, like Obama's, pose a major challenge for American Catholics.

Fidelis warned late last month that a pro-abortion Catholic choice as a vice presidential candidate would offend many Catholics who have struggled with the scandal of prominent pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Senator Biden.

“Barack Obama has re-opened a wound among American Catholics by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician," Burch said...........

Obamanation can't take a joke, can't tell the truth on this one. He would start sounding like Ted Bundy, a peer or perhaps his subordinate.

Thread by wagglebee.

...............................

"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Most people have a ready answer to this question. A "pro-life" supporter will generally point to conception, while a "pro-choice" proponent will often point to birth. There are a variety of opinions, but the average person does have an opinion. Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't answer this most basic question about human rights.

Senator Obama's response to Reverend Rick Warren's question during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He went on to state that he is "pro-choice", but that both sides should "find common ground" by seeking to "reduce the number of abortions." Still he refused to answer the question of what constitutes a human being worthy of rights and protections.....

More accurate than euthanasia, the term describes what flowery words cannot... Obamacide, a product of that would-be leader, Obamunist.

Thread by vietvet67 with thanks to Coleus for the ping.

..........................................

How does one properly describe another who would -- for purely selfish political reasons and with deliberation -- intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry child food?

More specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?

A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn't one of them......

The irony here is that it is a horse. Professor Pope addresses the irony. Thanks, Leslie.

.......................................

In January 2008, Elliot S. Saffran was charged with animal cruelty for refusing to euthanize Quincy, his 29-year-old arthritic horse. Several veterinarians have said that the horse was suffering and should be euthanized. While the horse recently died, the Massachusetts criminal case is proceeding. If convicted, Saffran faces up to five years in prison and a $2,500 fine.

With respect to human beings, a provider is typically subject to liability and discipline for failing to comply with a request to stop life-sustaining medical treatment. But what about the situation where the patient is suffering but the surrogate demands continued aggressive treatment? Here, the legal focus is often on the consequences of refusing to comply. But perhaps there should be legal consequences for agreeing to comply, consequences for causing patient suffering.

We are doing a few posts from Professor Pope's Medical Futility blog, with thanks to Leslie.

..................................

Kathryn Tucker, the legal affairs director for Compassion and Choices, has posted a 16-page report titled The 'Medical Right': Impact on End-of-Life Care. In her report, Tucker identifies the various players of the Religious Right and briefly outlines their impact on end-of-life care (though not futility disputes). From the abstract:

In The Medical Right, Remaking Medicine in Their Image (2007) (Medical Right Report or Report), the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) applies the term "Medical Right" to refer to religiously influenced medical, bioethics and health policy organizations of the Religious Right. This extremely important, well researched Report examines how the political agenda of the Religious Right, a political force comprised of fundamentalists primarily in the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, impacts reproductive health care. The growing influence of medical associations that apply fundamentalist Christian "biblical values" to research and policy affecting reproductive health care is explored. The Report reveals that many consortiums, think tanks, institutes, and programs apply Religious Right ideology to medical concerns under the mantle of "bioethics" or "biomedical ethics." These groups work with conservative advocacy, outreach, and legal organizations, along with politicians, to advance the policy agendas of the Religious Right. The confluence of conservative politics, fundamentalist religion, and ideologically influenced medicine and science, poses a threat to reproductive health care services, as discussed in detail in the Report.

While the Report is comprehensive in its discussion of the Religious Right's involvement in reproductive health issues, it addresses in only a cursory fashion how the Medical Right engages health law and policy governing end-of-life care. The purpose of this paper is to explore this area of concern more thoroughly.

Lenworth Jacobs and colleagues have a startling article, "Trauma Death: Views of the Public and Trauma Professionals on Death and Dying From Injuries," in this month's Archives of Surgery. A brief interview about the article is available at MedPageToday.

Jacobs et al. found that 61.3% of the public and 20.2% of professionals believe that a miracle can a save person in a persistent vegetative state. 57.4% of the public and 19.5% of trauma professionals said divine intervention can save a person when doctors think treatment is futile.

On the tough question of when to stop life-sustaining treatment, 72.8% of the public and 92.6% of professionals think if there's no hope for recovery, the focus of care should shift to the comfort of the dying patients. Moreover, among the whopping 27.2% who disagreed, 86.2% said treatment aimed at recovery should continue regardless of cost and half of those said it should continue aggressive care even when it meant taking resources away from those with a better chance of life.

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported yesterday that "the Appellate Division of [the New York] state Supreme Court refused . . . to extend the deadline for legal challenges to plans to remove Dorothy Livadas, 97, from life support at Strong Memorial Hospital."

Earlier this year, the local trial court removed Livadas' appointed agent, her daughter Ianthe, and instead appointed Catholic Family Center as Livadas' guardian. With the appellate court now stepping away, the trial court's order stands. Since the basic reason for replacing the substitute decision maker was Ianthe's refusal to consent to removing Livdas' life support, CFC should make that decision shortly.

The decision seems correct. Livadas clearly stated in her living will that she did not want to be kept on life support were she in the condition in which she is indisputably now in. Since Ianthe's health care decisions for Livadas contradicted instructions in Livadas' living will, Ianthe was a bad agent and had to be replaced.

But let's not forget that while Livadas' living will clearly applies to the present circumstances, the result is still premised on the assumption that Livadas' living will accurately represents her preferences. Ianthe argued that since Livadas signed many legal papers the same day she signed her living will, it is unlikely that she put much thought into it. Indeed, it is likely that many living wills (instructional advance directives) accurately reflect the preferences of declarants. But the presumption is that they do. Ianthe just could not bear the heavy burden of rebutting this presumption.

From the final paragraph of the conclusion:Texas’ medical futility process is not perfect, but it does provide a mechanism for dealing with irreconcilable conflicts between physicians and patients and/or their surrogates regarding end of life care. Existing “problems” with the TADA MFP – the definition of “inappropriate treatment,” the number of days allowed to effect a patient’s transfer, using a hospital committee to approve or deny the physician’s recommendation, the lack of facilities willing to accept patients on life support, and the health risks to patients during transfer – may likely be addressed in future legislative sessions. Currently, however, the TADA MFP is the only statute in the nation that brings the medical futilityprocess to a definitive conclusion. Whether other states will follow Texas’ lead and draft similar legislation remains to be seen.

When Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama about what he considered Americas greatest moral failure at the recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Senator Obama answered by saying, its insufficient help to the disadvantaged. Senator Obama then referenced the Bible and quoted Jesus admonition that, Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, commenting that this should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.

I couldnt believe my ears. I immediately thought of my sister Terri Schiavo who was the perfect example of a disadvantaged person in desperate need of our help. If Senator Obama truly took the words of Christ to heart, he would have been proud of his support for a law intended to prevent Terris intentional dehydration death that passed the United States Senate with unanimous consent in 2005....

In the You Cant Parody Someone Whos Already a Caricature Category Hat tip to K-Lo over at National Review Online who has the stomach to listen to the morning shows with people like Nancy Pelosi. Here is Pelosis remark about when life begins:

I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We dont know. The point is it that it shouldnt have an impact on a womans right to choose. How can you satirize that?

The high court said physicians can be held liable for their decisions on whether a patient’s condition is terminal.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. Sept. 1, 2008.

A recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling may open the door for physicians’ medical judgment to be questioned in end-of-life care decisions and make their role in such scenarios more difficult, some experts said.

The high court for the first time addressed the scope of a state law designed to help dying patients spell out their wishes to refuse life-sustaining treatment and enable doctors to honor such requests. Nevada’s Uniform Act on the Rights of the Terminally Ill states that, in the absence of a written directive from the patient or a designated family member, the attending doctor can make the decision to withhold or withdraw life support from a terminally ill patient with consent from a relative.

About 20 states have adopted similar laws modeled after draft legislation created by the Uniform Law Commission. The nonpartisan group — formerly the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws — helped develop the legislation in order to streamline consent mechanisms for end-of-life care across state lines.

The Nevada court affirmed that the attending physician is shielded from civil and criminal liability when the doctor acts in good faith to comply with the law. But judges distinguished that a doctor’s determination as to whether a patient is terminal can be challenged in court because the statute still requires doctors to follow reasonable medical standards in their decision-making.

In the case before the high court, Las Vegas emergency physician Jon Darden, MD, concluded that 72-year-old Avis Maxey was likely to die after taking 200 prescription pills in a suicide attempt in 2002, according to court documents. Her ex-husband, who found her unconscious at home, said she did not want to be kept alive. Dr. Darden administered only palliative care. Maxey died three hours later.

Her sons sued Dr. Darden for wrongful death in 2005, alleging he was negligent in classifying Maxey as terminal. Dr. Darden denied any wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to a trial court to decide the issue, among other claims. Trial is expected to begin early next year.

End-of-life care concerns

David J. Mortensen, Dr. Darden’s attorney, said the decision defies the purpose of the statute and could result in more litigation over end-of-life care.

“The intent [of the act] was to give physicians a level of comfort and make these difficult end-of-life decisions go smoothly,” he said. “If doctors are going to be second-guessing themselves as to whether a patient is truly terminal, or if there’s a 100th percent of a chance someone can be salvaged, it may impede the entire process.”

Mortensen said the ruling could force physicians to seek a second opinion unnecessarily in an emergency. Even then, doctors still could face liability.

“Anytime someone says a patient is terminal, it could be an issue for a jury now, and there’s always going to be some expert out there to say someone was salvageable,” he said.

The ruling also could have a “chilling effect” on physicians’ willingness in emergency settings to adhere to patients’ desires to refuse treatment — such as in situations involving attempted suicide — regardless of the patient’s condition, said Elizabeth Beyer, chair of the health care ethics program at the Nevada Center for Ethics & Health Policy. The center, located at the University of Nevada, Reno, was not involved in the case.

Courts typically have ruled that the physician at the bedside is in the best position to make decisions about a patient’s status, said Beyer, a lawyer and registered nurse.

“Although the medical profession is best qualified to determine whether or not a patient is in a terminal condition and likely to die, those choices — like any medical decision — [are] subject to review ... to provide a process when those medical decisions are questioned,” she said.

Jennifer R. Lane, attorney for Maxey’s sons and her estate, agreed.

She said the statute was meant to protect doctors from liability when they, in good faith, carry out a patient or surrogate’s request to withhold life-sustaining treatment and a family dispute later arises. Doctors should not have to question whether a patient or family member’s declaration was valid, or whether the patient was competent when he or she signed a directive, Lane said.

“But when it comes to the medical decisions, they have to comply with the standard of care,” she said. “There has to be something to protect patients in case some harm occurs.”

"Killing as Therapy: The Case of Terri Schiavo" is presented as a study of hypocrisies concerning euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the medicalization of death and dying, and access to drugs. Szasz observes that "The Schiavo drama was a classic battle of words: he who controlled the vocabulary controlled the debate and was assured of victory," (118) and he details how the language of ethics (e.g., 'rights', 'persons', 'autonomy') and medicine (e.g., 'coma', 'permanent vegetative state', 'irreversible brain damage', 'patient', 'physician', 'treatment', 'physician assisted suicide') shaped the unfolding of the case which, on his view, was badly handled by all parties involved: the husband, the parents, the media, medical ethicists, religious groups, physicians, the courts, and the state. He concludes that "Terri Schiavo was killed ... [b]ecause no one --not her husband, not her parents, not any philanthropist, not the American taxpayer- was willing to pay to keep her alive ... If we believe that executing innocent people is wrong, then the Schiavo case presents no ethical problem. It presents economic, political, and social problems." (129-130) And the deeper moral is supposed to be that practices concerning death, dying, and dependency, matters that previously have been problems for the family and the church, are now becoming problems for the state and are increasingly being framed in medical terms (e.g., 'physician-assisted suicide"). But, again, such medicalization comes with a cost: "In short, the legal definition of PAS as a procedure that only a physician can perform expands the medicalization of everyday life, extends medical control over personal conduct, especially at the end of life, and diminishes patient autonomy." (129)

"Peter Singer's Ethics of Medicalization", is a study of the views of Peter Singer, a medical ethicist. Szasz writes as follows: "Why do I consider his views --which I think are mistaken and wicked- in this volume? I do so because he is a prominent figure in contemporary bioethics and because his "preference utilitarian perspective" is a striking example of the contemporary debauchment of morality and politics by means of the medicalization of ethics." (134) Szasz sees in Singer a prime example of how processes of medicalization and the therapeutic state, with their objectionable consequences for personal responsibility and freedom, are buttressed by medical ethicists.

Unfortunately, for the most part, the above recommendations are negative, far too abstract to be of much use, and not terribly responsive to the demands of the context in which change might be pursued. In the case of alternatives to a disease conceptualization of behavior, Szasz seems to promote the false dichotomy, "brain disease or moral failing" that is relied upon by many defenders of psychiatry. In general, more detailed and constructive proposals are called for: e.g., proposals which clarify not only what viable alternative forms of discourse, institutions, and practices might be like, but also how change might be realistically implemented with alternatives that do not reinforce problematic dichotomies and assumptions that inform current practices.

~Snip~

Despite the critical points just rehearsed, this is a valuable collection of papers. In a culture of rampant medicalization with many apparent crises brewing (e.g., widespread psychiatric diagnosis and drug treatment of increasingly younger children; deep confusion in the development of the DSM system of classification), most of us are quite ill-equipped for recognizing and resisting the powerful social and linguistic influences that promote such practices and breed such crises. Szasz's writing stimulates thought, motivates a desire for change, and demonstrates forms of criticism in which everyone (especially those in the mental health professions) should be well versed....

Garrison Keillor ("Ideological purity may be due for a good scrubbing," Aug. 17) states that "Liberals hold that the test of a civilized society is how it deals with the weak, the sick, the powerless." How ironic that the left can claim to be a champion of the most vulnerable in our society, yet at the same time trample on the rights of those whom they claim to uphold.

Can somebody please tell me who is more weak and powerless than an unborn child in a mother's womb? Or how about the weak and powerless disabled person such as Terri Schindler Schiavo, who had her life forcibly ended by her husband through a court order? It is mind chilling to think that people can be so erroneous in their judgment as to not see that human life at all stages is precious and valuable and should be protected.

Yes, liberals please keep fighting for those have no voice such as the homeless, and those in poverty. But please open your eyes and see all of the weak, the sick, and the powerless; not just the ones that are politically convenient.

LONDON, August 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In 2004, U.K. Olympian Tasha Danvers-Smith sacrificed her spot at the Summer Olympics in Athens so she could bring her then-unborn baby to term. Four years later, her little boy inspired her all the way to the podium in the women's 400-metre hurdle event at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

After discovering she was pregnant in 2004, Danvers-Smith made a joint decision with her husband and coach, Darrell, to put her baby's life ahead of her dream of competing in the summer games in Athens. At the time some in the track and field community urged Tasha, touted as one of the U.K.'s best chances for a gold medal, to abort her baby, and the media chastised her when she did not....

In November, as we look back on the results of the 2008 presidential contest, I suspect that we'll conclude that Aug. 16 was the day that Barack Obama lost the race. At the Saddleback Civic Forum on the Presidency, evangelicals had their chance to meet Mr. Obama and to compare his brand of Christianity to theirs. When Mr. Obama said: "Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him," the evangelical audience was on the same page.

Pastor Rick Warren then posed his question about abortion - a pivotal issue for evangelical Christian and Catholic voters alike - this way: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" It was a question of how Mr. Obama's faith would inform his conscience and his policy. The Illinois senator's answer - "Answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade" - fell flat, both because it seemed to many people to be a casual answer to a very serious question, and because it simply did not connect with a Christian audience for whom it is an article of faith that God is the author of life....

Nancy Legosi bringing horror to the big screen of Congress, kissing off babies and causing the surviving ones to cry, soon to reappear, on when death begins...

Thread by Progresso with thanks to Coleus for the ping.

..................................

On Meet the Press this morning... MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him? REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

Unavoidably today, topics related to Terri's Legacy flow from death central, these days somewhere in Denver. We can just be sure the democratics will touch on the subject from multiple points.

And this is what I meant in the first place about the Obama Nation...

Thread by wagglebee.

......................................

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- You know a political party is obsessed with promoting abortion when it features two pro-abortion convention speakers. You know Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is obsessed when she says nothing would make her mother of her granddaughter than voting pro-abortion.

Richards' Tuesday night speech followed the one Nancy Keenan gave on Monday to Democrats in Denver.

Richards told the audience at the Democratic convention in Denver that her mother, the late Texas governor Ann Richards, had addressed the same crowd 20 years prior.

During that convention, the former governor introduced her granddaughter Lily.

Though her granddaughter eventually learned how to walk, spoke her first words and encountered the challenges and opportunities one's life normally presents, Richards told Democrats that casting her first presidential vote for a pro-abortion candidate would tops all of her mother's memories about Lily.

"Lily is here tonight and there is nothing that would make Mom prouder than that this November Lily will cast her first vote for president - for Barack Obama," Richards said.................

It must bring tears to the eyes of Mary Jo (or would have.) and must have brought tears to all the democratics there....

................................

When Sen. Ted Kennedy, valiantly fighting brain cancer, took the stage at the Democratic convention on Monday night, he made it clear that he is now on a mission that cannot be completed unless he returns to the Senate next year -- with Barack Obama in the White House.

Kennedy’s quest is to socialize medicine in America.

“For me, this is a season of hope,” he said. “New hope -- and this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- North, South, East, West, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

The crowd at the convention gave a standing ovation to this radical proposition that falsely equates a proposed new welfare benefit to a “fundamental right.”.................

This comes from the other left coast. Since the democratics have their own definition of "right", having a right coast just can't fit. Not just that, but they have their own definition of "reality". This time the mindset comes from those who like to think of themselves as Catholics.

..............................

The Humana Vitae is rightfully considered an inhumane document because it's a fancified way for the church to play grab-hand with women's bodies. But recent events show that the implications of the document go further than controlling women's bodies and sexualities and relationships. It's given supporters (especially male supporters) the belief that they should also be able to control and police women's minds. The first incident involves Catholic feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, who was offered a job at the University of San Diego, only to have the offer rescinded. Why? Because Ruether disagrees with the Humana Vitae, and is a pro-choice Catholic.

There is a constant struggle between academic freedom and Catholic theology at a lot of Catholic schools, but most coverage of the issue fails to explain is that these struggles only seem to happen in the area of sex and women's rights. Other potential sources of conflict at most Catholic universities are easily settled in favor of academic freedom, but for some reason, the idea that women have rights is so incendiary that it requires universities to completely rethink their approach to the basic concepts of higher education.............

Observers, including myself, had to wonder why Donohue thought the DNCC had the authority to bring female Catholics in line with religious teachings. To his credit, there seems to be a lot of confusion around this subject, with multiple people thinking that the combination of being female and being Catholic means that you lose your religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. During the Terri Schiavo debacle, Schiavo's parents and lawyer had the audacity to claim that Schiavo's spoken wishes were secondary to the church's teachings on euthanasia. Contrary to the hopes and dreams of Bill Donohue, the Schiavo fanatics, and anti-choice nuts the nationwide, though, the government actually allows members of the Catholic faith to reject the dictates of the church. Yes, even female members maintain their basic rights as citizens. Nor do the major political parties seem inclined to require religious tests of people who show up to offer press coverage..............

In an appearance on the NBC program Meet the Press on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed Catholic, denied that the Catholic Church condemns abortion.

Referring to Barack Obama's now-notorious answer to Pastor Rick Warren to the question of when life begins, Meet the Press moderator Tom Brokaw asked Pelosi, "Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade If he were to come to you and say, 'Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?' what would you tell him?"

Pelosi responded by sidestepping the question, appealing to her Catholic faith as the source of her uncertainty....

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The chairmen of the U.S. bishops' pro-life and doctrine committees criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying she "misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion" in a nationally televised interview Aug. 24.

Pelosi, D-Calif., who is Catholic, in an appearance that day on NBC's "Meet the Press," said for centuries church leaders had not been able to agree on when life begins.

A day later, a statement by Cardinal Justin F. Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., said the church since the first century "has affirmed the moral evil of every abortion."........

DELEWARE, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an interview with Bob Krebs, the Communications Director for the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, to which Senator Joseph Biden belongs, Krebs confirmed that Biden's Bishop will not permit the Senator even if elected Vice President of the United States of America to speak at Catholic schools.

When asked for the Bishop's take on Senator Biden and his stand in favor of abortion, Krebs directed LifeSiteNews.com to Bishop Michael Saltarelli's 2004 statement on 'Catholics in Political Life' which, said Krebs, "very plainly states Bishop's position in this matter."...

With another pro-abortion Catholic on the Democratic national ticket, we can be quite sure that the issue will not go away this year.

It's remarkable: 25 years after Roe v. Wade, there's no realistic prospect for overturning that appalling decision, at least in the short term. There's no federal legislation currently under consideration that would ban abortion or even significantly curtail the slaughter of the unborn. Nevertheless it continues to be an important issue in every national campaign.............

LONDON, August 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Crisis pregnancy centres, as well as doctors, nurses and midwives, may be subject to prosecution and a two-year jail sentence if they convince a woman to forego an abortion. Under a proposed amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, those groups advertising services to pregnant women who provide "false information" or even information that is "factually correct" that convinces a woman to change her mind about abortion, will have committed an offense.

Tabled by one of David Cameron's Tory MPs, John Bercow, the amendment says, "It shall be an offence to deliberately mislead through advertising in relation to the termination of pregnancy and alternatives thereto." Bercow has recently gone on record in support of an effort to bring explicit "sex-education" to six-year-old children in mandatory school curriculums.

The amendment continues, "Any person, association or body corporate shall be guilty of an offence" if they provide "material which ... contains false information and is untruthful ... or in its overall presentation deceives or is in any way likely to deceive the average person...even if the information is factually correct"......

McCain BETTER NOT pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson. She was against Terri but haven’t googled lately if it was an absent or a no vote. She’s a Texas euthanasist in the tradition of the famous rino brothers. One of them signed Texas’ Futile Care Act which is being revisited this year. Apparently, it is too dismissive of human life and human rights.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.